L'expert, le profane et le terrorisme: quelques elements de reflexion sociologique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The management of technological and health risks has been the source of many sociological studies in recent years. The purpose of this article is to draw on some of them to show how both the successes and the failures of technology and health risk management can contribute to ideas and discussions on terrorism prevention. The author examines three main questions: (1) Is terrorism a risk, or can it be treated as one through the application of conventional risk prevention tools? (2) What is, or should be, the role of the general public in preventing terrorist acts? (3) What is the primary goal of prevention? To prevent attacks or to prevent terror? Recent incidents show that managing one risk may intensify risks elsewhere and that there is a need to take into account not only the expectations and working conditions of those actually implementing the preventive measures but also public reaction. User empowerment and accountability is unlikely to be a contributing factor in terrorism prevention. On the other hand, some prevention efforts must be aimed at the general public, if only to forewarn people of the potential for terror and its devastating effects. La gestion des risques technologiques ou sanitaires a suscité de nombreux travaux sociologiques ces dernières années. Il s'agit ici de mobiliser certains de ces travaux, pour montrer comment la gestion de ces risques, par ses accomplissements mais aussi par ses défaillances, peut nourrir une réflexion sur la prévention du terrorisme. Trois axes sont discutés : le terrorisme est-il un risque, ou peut-il être traité comme tel, en utilisant les outils habituels de la prévention des risques ? Quelle place accorder au public dans la prévention des actes terroristes ? Enfin, quel est l'objectif principal de cette prévention : prévenir les attentats ou prévenir la terreur ? Des exemples récents nous rappellent que la gestion d'un risque peut en exacerber d'autres, et qu'il faut prendre en compte les aspirations et les conditions de travail de ceux qui la mette en oeuvre, mais aussi les réactions du public. En outre, la prévention du terrorisme ne doit sans doute pas trop compter sur une responsabilisation de l'usager. En revanche le public constitue une cible nécessaire de la prévention, ne serait-ce que pour prévenir la terreur et ses effets délétères.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".